View Full Version : Valerie Plame
So someone revelaing her "identity" gets someone sent to jail, but she wants the rights to reveal the same type of information to make a buck?? Go Figure.
In the ruling Thursday, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 2007 lower court decision to prohibit Valerie Plame from revealing the length of her tenure with the CIA in her now published memoir.
A federal appeals court in New York says the CIA did not violate Valerie Plame's free speech rights.
In the ruling Thursday, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 2007 lower court decision. It barred Plame from revealing the length of her tenure with the CIA in her now published memoir "Fair Game."
The appeals court agreed that the agency made a good argument to keep the information secret.
Plame's identity was revealed in a syndicated newspaper column in 2003 after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, began criticizing the war in Iraq.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted to lying and obstruction of justice in an investigation of the leak. Former President Bush commuted Libby's two-and-half year prison sentence.
She and her publisher, Simon & Schuster, sued the CIA in 2007. They claimed they had a First Amendment right to publish her dates of employment with the CIA in her memoir.
kimberly
11-12-2009, 15:18
I've seen her interviewed on television. She's not shy at all about talking. She doesn't use much discretion, but aside from her safety, I'd think it would jeopardize some of the work she has done. Having been covert, there should be SOME kind of gag on her. IMO
ghost--scout
11-12-2009, 19:29
You'd be surprised how a little bit of information can turn into a gold mine of value. It may not seem important to us or everybody, but just knowing she was in could be the missing piece of the puzzle for someone trying to put together some intelligence information. Especially with the IO War going on that's why Operational Security (OPSEC) is such a big deal and gets pushed down to the lowest levels.
Dozer523
11-12-2009, 22:21
When the Vice President (and or his office) signs your "Burn Notice" I think your obligation to the Command Authority less binding.
When the Vice President (and or his office) signs your "Burn Notice" I think your obligation to the Command Authority less binding.
Perhaps, but the obligation to her classmates and coworkers is forever. One thing that Plame has lost sight of: it's not about her. It's about those who came before her and those who will come after she's gone. It's about her "friends". It's about the cause. Selfless service. She knows better.
I'm pretty sure that if she, or her lawyer, would look at any NDA that she ever signed, they would see that the 1st Amendment is nowhere on it. If she cannot understand (or more likely doesn't care) why her affiliation dates are not for public domain, then I'm glad she's gone. Our nation is better off with her on the sidelines.
I understand her desire to write a book about her service (many others have) but she knows the rules and once agreed to follow them.
Dozer523
11-13-2009, 18:53
Perhaps, but the obligation to her classmates and coworkers is forever. One thing that Plame has lost sight of: it's not about her. It's about those who came before her and those who will come after she's gone. It's about her "friends". It's about the cause. Selfless service. She knows better.
I'm pretty sure that if she, or her lawyer, would look at any NDA that she ever signed, they would see that the 1st Amendment is nowhere on it. If she cannot understand (or more likely doesn't care) why her affiliation dates are not for public domain, then I'm glad she's gone. Our nation is better off with her on the sidelines.
I understand her desire to write a book about her service (many others have) but she knows the rules and once agreed to follow them. How would revealing the length of her tenure with the CIA endanger those highlighted?
Surf n Turf
11-13-2009, 21:14
How would revealing the length of her tenure with the CIA endanger those highlighted?
Dozer,
A quick calculation of her end date would establish the timeframe in which she worked for the CIA. Any associations between those dates could lead to identification of sources / methods.
SnT
Dozer,
I have no personal insight into Val's career or the CIA itself.
According to a 2003 NYT article, she was a NOC and served overseas as an officer specializing in Counter Proliferation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/us/debating-a-leak-the-director-cia-chief-is-caught-in-middle-by-leak-inquiry.html?pagewanted=1
If she worked at company X, then one (e.g. foreign intel officer) would assume that everyone who worked there was/is/will be affiliated with the same organization.
She also reportedly worked at US diplomatic facilities abroad and EVERYONE knows all State Dept employees are intel folks. :eek:
I would not want to be an Iranian scientist who found out that the businesswoman I'd been dealing with was actually a CIA officer. I'm sure the Iranian security service wasn't particularly pleased either.
Again, this info is all open source.
Lindy
Lindy, it's worth mentioning that Plame isn't the one who revealed her source of employment. I agree with you that it is atrociously reckless to reveal that sort of information, but - with all due respect - it wasn't her choice. Forbidding a book, assuming that it details only those circumstances, seems like trying to close the barn after the horses have already left.
That said, Mrs. Plame seems to be abiding by her non-disclosure agreement; presumably, for this case to have even gone to court, she had to apply for permission to publish. I don't know whether she was trying to reveal confidential information that is still relevant - if that's the case, whether she did it innocently or not, the CIA and the court system made the right call.
HowardCohodas
11-14-2009, 14:15
My concern is only for those who served with her who may be compromised by details released by her.
There have been many leaks out of the CIA, but the CIA selectively chooses which ones to force into public prosecution. These are the choices of the brass, not the choices of the personnel on the ground who risk their lives.
<rant on>
I have no sympathy for Valerie Plame. Scooter Libby was found guilty for lying and obstruction of justice. Yet it was Valerie Plame and her husband who lied and obstructed justice.
And I'll never forgive Colin Powell for knowing the truth, but letting his nemesis (Dick Cheny) come under public suspicion and ruining the life of a good and dedicated man (Scooter Libby). I see no honor or code here.
If the moderators find this inappropriate, please delete it. But this has been gnawing at me for a long time.
<rant off>
...seems like trying to close the barn after the horses have already left.
...after SOME of the horse have left.
There may be some prize thoroughbreds still inside that barn. You know, those ones kept hidden from view so the other horse owners didn't know you were studding them out.
It's all part of the game. :cool:
kimberly
11-15-2009, 20:47
...after SOME of the horse have left.
There may be some prize thoroughbreds still inside that barn. You know, those ones kept hidden from view so the other horse owners didn't know you were studding them out.
It's all part of the game. :cool:
It's a dangerous game. And those involved would not agree it is a game at all.
And those involved would not agree it is a game at all.Are you certain?
Then why has the "Great Game" been used to describe the craft of intelligence by those who study it as well as its practitioners? Examples are here (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUStrepper.htm), here (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/50559/robin-w-winks/the-wise-man-of-intelligence-uncovering-the-life-of-allen-dulles?page=show) and here (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no3/article08.html).
When the Vice President (and or his office) signs your "Burn Notice" I think your obligation to the Command Authority less binding.
IIRC Richard Armitage "burned" her - and he was no friend of the V.P.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460.html
v/r
phil
Dozer523
11-16-2009, 10:52
IIRC Richard Armitage "burned" her - and he was no friend of the V.P.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460.htmlv/r
phil Okay let me see if I follow your cited article from the Washington Post
"It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. This is what we're talking about The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago. So Scooter was wrongly convicted?
That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless.That's what the first sentence of this article says. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, which pretty much was true as there wasn't any yellow cake uranium and we still haven't found any WMD Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring just asking around? about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. That he reported was not true and no one subsequently showed that he was wrong in his findings Mr. Libby then allegedly and later convicted disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury and convicted when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.
That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. That's what the first sentence of this article says. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified. I think I've got it now.
I'm not taking issue.
This is where I have a problem.
POTUS directed all members of the administration to cooperate with the independent counsel. That causes a real problem from a personal level and risk exposure.
The FBI controls the interview and documents what was said. Most of the time the agent memorializes his notes and that becomes the record - here I would suspect that the meeting was transcribed.
Grand Jury materials remain secret until released following indictment. It is hard to review your prior testimony when called back.
By following the POTUS order, any federal employee (even the VPs CoS) get into trouble as memories fade over time.
As a (former) lawyer he knows that law enforcement was not interviewing him to be his friend. NEVER make a statement to the police unless you have a grant of immunity. Let the police develop their case elsewhere.
He followed orders, made statements, and his very statements led to his conviction - not for "burning" her - Armitage had - but for either not remembering (or lying) about the sequence of events. He should have done what he learned in school, and shut up. He might have been forced out of the administration, but he would still have his law license and the ability to support his family.
v/r
phil
HowardCohodas
11-16-2009, 12:30
NEVER make a statement to the police unless you have a grant of immunity. Let the police develop their case elsewhere.
I show this video in the concealed carry classes I teach although I usually break it up into two parts as it is nearly 50 minutes. The two presenters are Professor James Duane and Officer George Bruch.
Don't Talk to the Police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)
HowardCohodas
11-16-2009, 12:33
Grand Jury materials remain secret until released following indictment. It is hard to review your prior testimony when called back.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm out on a limb here, but isn't the witness permitted to publicly reveal his own testimony? If true, is he not entitled to a transcript of his own testimony? Is he permitted to record his own testimony?
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm out on a limb here, but isn't the witness permitted to publicly reveal his own testimony? If true, is he not entitled to a transcript of his own testimony? Is he permitted to record his own testimony?
Some would say I'm not much of a lawyer, but I'll try my best to answer!
It depends - Remember Monica Lewinsky? The blue dress? A civilian called before a G.J. is under no obligation of secrecy. Neither is a target of the G.J. I believe the the man's name in the Lewinsky matter was Vernon Jordan. He was a friend of the POTUS. Jordan scheduled a press conference right after he testified before the G.J. Jordan came out on the steps of the courthouse and said, "Ken Starr asked me this", I answered "-----". Starr then asked this, etc. etc. Jordan's statements concerning the G.J. were secret as far as the U.S. was concerned. Jordan was not a government employee and he was under no obligation of secrecy. He used the opportunity to make it appear that there was nothing to the allegations being investigated. Starr took his beating in the press. He couldn't respond. Ultimately they got the DNA, linked it to the dress, and the rest is history.
The government (or being part of it) is different. The G.J. was created as an indepenent investigative body to protect the citizens from their government. As such, the proecess protects citizens from the harm to reputation that suspicion of criminality brings. The Fed Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6(e)(2) impose secrecy upon the government to include government employees called before the G.J. The secrecy serves several purposes. The design is to encourage witnesses to come forward, testify secretly and honestly, to minimize risk that defendants will flee or obstruct investigations and to protect accused persons who are ultimately exonerated from unfavorable publicity
While the G.J. investigates, no, he is not entitled to copies of his prior testimony. Once an indictment or True Bill is issued by the G.J., then under Rule 16 (and several other authorities) he is entitled to a copy of his prior testimony.
v/r
phil
He can not bring his own stenographer, tape recorder, or even his own attorney into the G.J. room.
v/r
phil